This is just the usual blah article trying to create drama, written by a journalist that'd like ot think that they're full of "insight". The truth and simplicity of the matter is that Apple has high design standards, that costs money, and their stuff will therefore cost a little more. Every other competing exec and "insightful" reporter will never stop trying to tell us that we can get the same quality and/or value for less--it's just not true. They also will never stop telling us that Apple is about to fold, fail, or die.
If there's a certain type and amount of gravitational interaction in one half of the universe, its safe to assume the same is happening in the other half.
Your comment can be condensed the above except I took, and I will make my comment on that. It's worth reminding ourselves that nothing can be assumed in the realm of the fringes of physics (Einstein had a quote about throwing all assumptions and common sense out the window). Granted, it's intended for the subatomic world (and rightfully so), but there are equally mysterious and counterintuitive things which happen on large scales as well (ex, relativity, the mysteries of dark energy and dark matter). This is to say that the gaps of our knowledge are so large in physics (ex, lack of unification of all forces & energy, the universe's origins, the mystery of dark matter, the mystery of dark energy--just to name a few), that it's self-defeating to make assumptions right and left. In fact, one of the present mysteries is that there are cases of non-chaotic measurements of visible matter or energy (ie, the fact that some distributions of what we can measure strays from normal statistics in some places--such things are very hard to explain with pure rotational symmetry & chaos such as you assume we should model).
Ah, looks like they'll have piles of laptop parts to accompany their piles of Travelstar HDs. I bought a "Hitachi/IBM" Travelstar three months ago and have done two exchanges b/c each one I got gave me scrapes of death by week 2. After the 3rd one, I said screw the warranty--I pitched it in the trash--and bought a different brand. Gee, I wonder why IBM got rid of theird HD business. Ugh.
1. Mandatory exception handling forces error handling down into the code where it can best be dealt with. In other words, you have to work harder to not handle abnormal situations.
By this logic every [C] OS API falls short of the "quality" of exception handling schemes. This is to say that exception handling seems to affect only devs that don't care (ie, a dev that cares will handle a C error scheme just as well). You are right that it's harder to blow off errors in Java, but if you have a dev that has a low care-level, he's going to write crappy stuff in *any* language.
2. Garbage collection eliminates whole classes of memory mismanagement problems./
Perhaps, but a well-designed and documented C API also "eliminates whole classes of memory mismanagement problems", using your words--look at the OS APIs. Separately, the upcoming generations of devs are failing to manage memory well b/c they're not responsible for its management. I've seen plenty of twirps chew through more RAM than you can shake a stick at because they don't realize the kind of memory they've (unnecessarily) tied up.
Silly as this may sound, I don't prefer java for the following reasons (keep in mind that I'm a dev who does performance-sensitive software on only Mac OS and Windows and is self-employed):
1. Lack of universal presence. As a shareware author, it'd be a nightmare to deal w/ problems of users having a bad or out-of-date version of java present (or not at all).
2. Low-level management. The graphics stuff I do in my stuff is low-level at times and would be otherwise impossible (or performance-deadly) in Java.
3. Ridiculously long class and method names. This one is a little silly, but it's true (for me). Code with short identifiers (but yet still well descriptive) that doesn't span an absurd line width due to long class and method names is much easier to read and comprehend (rather, as I've seen in Java, statements becoming far from readable because of the ridiculously long class and method names). Obviously, this point is more for me and less than ligament, but I'm curious to see if anyone responds to it.
CGI Guy: I'm not really happy with the interface you're currently putting on db_object_x, it doesn't fit well with my coding model
DB Guy: Ok, I'll re-work that to work better for your purposes.
HTML/JS Guy: CGI Guy, I need you to give me $value_x in a template variable on page_3....
HR Person: *blink* Should I buy caf or decaf for the coffee machine?
Sales Person: Right, right--blah, blah--so how much more can we charge people?
PHB: You people need to stop talking about the trees and build me my damn forest!
Xcode vs. CodeWarrior -- a small guy's perspective
on
XCode Roundup
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
As much as I love Apple, I'm a disappointed by this Blizzard article. I preface all this by saying that I've been Mac OS dev for several years now and love Apple's OS quality ethic to the marrow. However, I also co-develop my source base under Win32 all these years under, of course CodeWarrior. So, to be clear, I've been developing cross-platform cores for both platforms under CodeWarrior for years now (using the Mac OS IDE--I'd rather quit software than use an IDE in the Windows environment with Windows "standards"). It's only been in this last year that Xcode itself (ie, not tools, such as CHUD) is finally about to pass CodeWarrior overall.
I'm disappointed with this article because it's basically just rah-rah-rah (as in cheerleading) and speaks little to a small company cross platform dev (like me). In other words, it's great that company the size of Blizzard has enough devs to have Windows teams, Mac OS team, and cross-platform teams (such that each team uses a native IDE and compiler) but smaller companies don't have that kind of firepower. In other words, as a dev who targets Win32 and Mac OS, I don't have the time to use Xcode for Mac OS and VisualStudio for Win32. Because it's meant to be PR, I won't harp on how the article doesn't contain a shed of detail (like one poster here commented, they say they use the Xcode tools, not Xcode itself).
On that note, CodeWarrior still is impressive across the board for *both* Win32 and Mac OS projects. The time and effort they've put into the size and flexibility of the various pref panes and project item control has paid off; it's provided unmatched project control and continues to reign superior (disclaimer: I've yet to give Xcode 1.5 a close look).
My biggest reason for not jumping to Xcode (from CodeWarrior) is that I'd still have to build my projects for Win32 under CodeWarrior after switching to Xcode. Bottom line is that now I'd be juggling two project sets with no significant gain from the switch to Xcode. My decision to switch to Xcode will be based on two factors: what Xcode 2 brings to the table and if Metrowerks releases an entirely new version of CodeWarrior (ie, CW Pro 10). If the latter does not happen by the time Xcode 2 is released (mid 2005?), CodeWarrior's Mac OS support will simply be just too out of date to run with.
They can make very hard, well-documented interface delineations between single-programmer-sized pieces of the project and essentially have a bunch of subprojects run by individuals that again look like unmaintainable trash,
It depends on the rev of the code. If the team is entering serious uncharted waters (which is what I deal with regularly), the first draft is code is better to be running than intensely structured (and take twice the time). This is all to say that you can't make a long-term, top-quality piece of software when you're entering on the first stroke. As the saying goes, "expect to throw your first attempt away" (someone please correct me w/ the right quote if you know it).
IMHO, I'm a big fan of the "surgical strike team" approach to development, but then again, our software happens to be on the outer rim of typical software. Also, the "surgical strike team" approach is a more realistic one when you're talking about a small company that can't afford to have lots of devs (and only has one or two "think-tank" devs who wear a lot of hats and can't spend weeks writing specs on concepts that are only first or second generation).
You left out some key parts of your bio for your story before you get a sympathy vote. What university did you attend? What was your GPA? What side/personal projects have you been part of? Those things are *huge* indicators of your future potential, from an interviewer's perspective.
A piece of paper doesn't mean you'll have an exciting career track. Being a sharp, accomplished thinker and hobbyist ready to start in a low-paying dev position (able to move up) will telegraph that you're serious about your career hopes.
Criticism aside, you should exit that helpdesk position asap if you're serious about moving down the engineer track. It'll only take a year of that position before you're perceived as someone who's willing to settle for a helpdesk position (rather than pursue your career interests).
If you want a well-rounded education where they teach you how to think, and focus on wisdom, rather than straight up knowledge which will be obsolete on graduation day anyway, go to a university.
Really? I didn't know that methodologies of thinking and wisdom were obsolete. Good thing your grace filled us in.
I think you need to frequent the classrooms of some of the top universities before you go around sporting such statements (because you look pretty silly to anyone who knows been part of those places)
So in the end, you get at the very least the same education at UIC that you would at MIT, and perhaps get even more. For a LOT less money.
Just who are you trying to convince? It's actually pretty simple, IMHO...
Ivy leage schools, at least in the science/math/engineering departments, use those whopper tuitions for top facilities, top research funding, and to attract top professors. The top professors, in turn, typically lead their field and are able to share their expertise, insight, and findings with their students, attracting the brightest and most motivated students. As a cycle, since the top students popular their classes, the professor and curriculums can move faster and in more depth than at other universities. So, although a Taylor series is a Taylor series, such fundamentals are omitted from class time. For example, in my first semester at Cornell, the intro E&M course I took starting using multi-dimensional analytical calculus by day two--there was no watering down of the material because students may not have even used it before. You were just expected to learn it all within a few days--and if you couldn't, you'd fail out.
So, to return the the issue, the large tuition ends up being a means to concentrate top students. A university can't concentrate the top students if they don't have the top facilities, the top professors, and the top research (and those things take money!)
Is it possible to get the same caliber education elsewhere? Sure, but it's going to take a truckload of independent and above-and-beyond study to do so (which is hard for *anyone* to become that self-motivated).
Is large tuition necessary to concentrate top students? For the reasons above, yes--unless the government doesn't supply all that money (as the Swiss guy posted in a related thread).
Yeah, but Thoreau was a looser. His parent's said "get a job you bum", kicked him out of the house, and hoped he'd act like a derned grownup for a change. Instead, he went and built a shack 2 miles away near a lake and did a little writing about how great he was. What a joke.
These words are harrowing.
I don't know what's worse, the fact that you say this and then proceed to offer advice (as if you've established yourself as someone who has valuable things to say), or how grossly wrong you are. The fact that you posted this anonymously only testtifies to your cowardice and lack of credentials.
Guy, you're the "looser", not a one of the most well-respected and accomplished American poets.
As a result, PayPal said it would pay a total of $9.25 million to settle the federal class-action suit, $3.4 million of which would go to paying its customers' legal fees.
Once again, the only real winners are the lawyers, skimming off the top, the only benefactors of a situation in which neither the defendant or the plaintiff win (assuming that you agree that an award of less than $1 isn't a "win" for a single person's perspective).
I posted the following on this guy's blog comment form, and I thought some folks here might agree with it... Yay/nay?
A worthwhile and insightful read (and it's about to get slashdotted). You use the phrase "great software" frequently. I post this sincerely and do not mean to troll. Since you are a MS PM and/or dev, there seems to be three possibilities:
(1) MS consistently makes "great software" and you are, therefore, content to be a MS employee.
(2) MS does not make consistently "great software" and you are, therefore, either unhappy at MS or long to be project group that makes "great software".
(3) You and other people (myself included) have dissimilar meanings of "great software".
From the article, this sums up everything and this country's possible future business landscape:
Certainly, a finding in Acacia's favor will herald the arrival of a new kind of player: a company that controls technology but doesn't create it; a firm that buys patents but that patents nothing. From its roots in venture capitalism, Acacia has morphed into something that has no real peer.
We can only hope to elect officials and (indirectly) judges that frown on this practice.
This reminds me of the excellent film Wall Street, where we see the insightful contrast between the working man (ie, someone who produces something played by Martin Sheen) and a big-time trader (ie, someone who gets income without, at any point, adding any value--played my Michael Douglas).
It's scary how much you can learn from blogs.msdn.com. There are a lot of smart people working at MS, but what are they all working on? The quality and thoughtfulness of the posters there indicates that they must have some killer internal projects.
It was interesting--thanks for sharing the link...
However, this is a good opportunity to consider the differences between being smart/witty/intelligent and being driven, visionary, and willing to work in a project that may not succeed (b/c it's not in backed from the get-go with millions). I can say this b/c I've been exposed to ms developers, startup develops (myself included), and developers somewhere in between. I, personally, am not impressed with devs that don't seek the highest level of excellence in what they create. Most ms devs I've seen are so high in the Microsoft ivory tower that they've lost all sense of reality and priority. They are unconsciously in the mindset that the world revolves around them. Keep in mind this phenomenon isn't a MS thing--it's what happens to celebrities, wealthy people, and powerful people that only spend their time inside their courtyard.
To spare boring details, I've repeatedly witnessed MS teams not fix trivial bugs/issues because of the testing (ie added budget) they'd "need" to do on the changed code (despite that any dev could look at the code and tell the PM that there is *no* risk). *That's* why even the smallest issues and problem tend to go unfixed for so rediculous amounts of time.
Slashdot Mirror
Mod parent up!! You've hit it on the head.
the President's full budgetary request of $16.2 billion dollars for NASA as a part of his Vision for Space Exploration.
And if you like this idea, just think that the cost of the iraq war could have paid for 15 of these. *sigh*
Actually, urine isn't acidic, but basic.
No, it's typically acidic.
This is just the usual blah article trying to create drama, written by a journalist that'd like ot think that they're full of "insight". The truth and simplicity of the matter is that Apple has high design standards, that costs money, and their stuff will therefore cost a little more. Every other competing exec and "insightful" reporter will never stop trying to tell us that we can get the same quality and/or value for less--it's just not true. They also will never stop telling us that Apple is about to fold, fail, or die.
For your amusement, check out the apple death knell counter if you haven't already.
I make shareware for Mac OS and Windows, getting about 120k visits per month:
IE: 83%
Netscape: 7%
Safari: 6%
Opera:1%
Moz: 1%:
Maybe you should check out G-Force then...
"They say porn!", I shout.
Only circuit boards I see.
But wait, slot loading?
If there's a certain type and amount of gravitational interaction in one half of the universe, its safe to assume the same is happening in the other half.
Your comment can be condensed the above except I took, and I will make my comment on that. It's worth reminding ourselves that nothing can be assumed in the realm of the fringes of physics (Einstein had a quote about throwing all assumptions and common sense out the window). Granted, it's intended for the subatomic world (and rightfully so), but there are equally mysterious and counterintuitive things which happen on large scales as well (ex, relativity, the mysteries of dark energy and dark matter). This is to say that the gaps of our knowledge are so large in physics (ex, lack of unification of all forces & energy, the universe's origins, the mystery of dark matter, the mystery of dark energy--just to name a few), that it's self-defeating to make assumptions right and left. In fact, one of the present mysteries is that there are cases of non-chaotic measurements of visible matter or energy (ie, the fact that some distributions of what we can measure strays from normal statistics in some places--such things are very hard to explain with pure rotational symmetry & chaos such as you assume we should model).
Ah, looks like they'll have piles of laptop parts to accompany their piles of Travelstar HDs. I bought a "Hitachi/IBM" Travelstar three months ago and have done two exchanges b/c each one I got gave me scrapes of death by week 2. After the 3rd one, I said screw the warranty--I pitched it in the trash--and bought a different brand. Gee, I wonder why IBM got rid of theird HD business. Ugh.
Impressively said. Well done.
1. Mandatory exception handling forces error handling down into the code where it can best be dealt with. In other words, you have to work harder to not handle abnormal situations.
By this logic every [C] OS API falls short of the "quality" of exception handling schemes. This is to say that exception handling seems to affect only devs that don't care (ie, a dev that cares will handle a C error scheme just as well). You are right that it's harder to blow off errors in Java, but if you have a dev that has a low care-level, he's going to write crappy stuff in *any* language.
2. Garbage collection eliminates whole classes of memory mismanagement problems./
Perhaps, but a well-designed and documented C API also "eliminates whole classes of memory mismanagement problems", using your words--look at the OS APIs. Separately, the upcoming generations of devs are failing to manage memory well b/c they're not responsible for its management. I've seen plenty of twirps chew through more RAM than you can shake a stick at because they don't realize the kind of memory they've (unnecessarily) tied up.
Silly as this may sound, I don't prefer java for the following reasons (keep in mind that I'm a dev who does performance-sensitive software on only Mac OS and Windows and is self-employed):
1. Lack of universal presence. As a shareware author, it'd be a nightmare to deal w/ problems of users having a bad or out-of-date version of java present (or not at all).
2. Low-level management. The graphics stuff I do in my stuff is low-level at times and would be otherwise impossible (or performance-deadly) in Java.
3. Ridiculously long class and method names. This one is a little silly, but it's true (for me). Code with short identifiers (but yet still well descriptive) that doesn't span an absurd line width due to long class and method names is much easier to read and comprehend (rather, as I've seen in Java, statements becoming far from readable because of the ridiculously long class and method names). Obviously, this point is more for me and less than ligament, but I'm curious to see if anyone responds to it.
AND YES I DO BEHAVE LIKE THIS IN REAL LIFE i bet you donnt have theguts to doit.
Then why did you post anonymously, shitcock?
The Democrats are STILL pro-slavery! They just call it "welfare" these days.
...so you're saying welfare should be abolished? And by your logic, those people would be better off? That seems a little nonsensical.
Even the most beautiful moon still doesn't compare to the wonders of Uranus.
CGI Guy: I'm not really happy with the interface you're currently putting on db_object_x, it doesn't fit well with my coding model
DB Guy: Ok, I'll re-work that to work better for your purposes.
HTML/JS Guy: CGI Guy, I need you to give me $value_x in a template variable on page_3.
HR Person: *blink* Should I buy caf or decaf for the coffee machine?
Sales Person: Right, right--blah, blah--so how much more can we charge people?
PHB: You people need to stop talking about the trees and build me my damn forest!
As much as I love Apple, I'm a disappointed by this Blizzard article. I preface all this by saying that I've been Mac OS dev for several years now and love Apple's OS quality ethic to the marrow. However, I also co-develop my source base under Win32 all these years under, of course CodeWarrior. So, to be clear, I've been developing cross-platform cores for both platforms under CodeWarrior for years now (using the Mac OS IDE--I'd rather quit software than use an IDE in the Windows environment with Windows "standards"). It's only been in this last year that Xcode itself (ie, not tools, such as CHUD) is finally about to pass CodeWarrior overall.
I'm disappointed with this article because it's basically just rah-rah-rah (as in cheerleading) and speaks little to a small company cross platform dev (like me). In other words, it's great that company the size of Blizzard has enough devs to have Windows teams, Mac OS team, and cross-platform teams (such that each team uses a native IDE and compiler) but smaller companies don't have that kind of firepower. In other words, as a dev who targets Win32 and Mac OS, I don't have the time to use Xcode for Mac OS and VisualStudio for Win32. Because it's meant to be PR, I won't harp on how the article doesn't contain a shed of detail (like one poster here commented, they say they use the Xcode tools, not Xcode itself).
On that note, CodeWarrior still is impressive across the board for *both* Win32 and Mac OS projects. The time and effort they've put into the size and flexibility of the various pref panes and project item control has paid off; it's provided unmatched project control and continues to reign superior (disclaimer: I've yet to give Xcode 1.5 a close look).
My biggest reason for not jumping to Xcode (from CodeWarrior) is that I'd still have to build my projects for Win32 under CodeWarrior after switching to Xcode. Bottom line is that now I'd be juggling two project sets with no significant gain from the switch to Xcode. My decision to switch to Xcode will be based on two factors: what Xcode 2 brings to the table and if Metrowerks releases an entirely new version of CodeWarrior (ie, CW Pro 10). If the latter does not happen by the time Xcode 2 is released (mid 2005?), CodeWarrior's Mac OS support will simply be just too out of date to run with.
They can make very hard, well-documented interface delineations between single-programmer-sized pieces of the project and essentially have a bunch of subprojects run by individuals that again look like unmaintainable trash,
It depends on the rev of the code. If the team is entering serious uncharted waters (which is what I deal with regularly), the first draft is code is better to be running than intensely structured (and take twice the time). This is all to say that you can't make a long-term, top-quality piece of software when you're entering on the first stroke. As the saying goes, "expect to throw your first attempt away" (someone please correct me w/ the right quote if you know it).
IMHO, I'm a big fan of the "surgical strike team" approach to development, but then again, our software happens to be on the outer rim of typical software. Also, the "surgical strike team" approach is a more realistic one when you're talking about a small company that can't afford to have lots of devs (and only has one or two "think-tank" devs who wear a lot of hats and can't spend weeks writing specs on concepts that are only first or second generation).
You left out some key parts of your bio for your story before you get a sympathy vote. What university did you attend? What was your GPA? What side/personal projects have you been part of? Those things are *huge* indicators of your future potential, from an interviewer's perspective.
A piece of paper doesn't mean you'll have an exciting career track. Being a sharp, accomplished thinker and hobbyist ready to start in a low-paying dev position (able to move up) will telegraph that you're serious about your career hopes.
Criticism aside, you should exit that helpdesk position asap if you're serious about moving down the engineer track. It'll only take a year of that position before you're perceived as someone who's willing to settle for a helpdesk position (rather than pursue your career interests).
If you want a well-rounded education where they teach you how to think, and focus on wisdom, rather than straight up knowledge which will be obsolete on graduation day anyway, go to a university.
Really? I didn't know that methodologies of thinking and wisdom were obsolete. Good thing your grace filled us in.
I think you need to frequent the classrooms of some of the top universities before you go around sporting such statements (because you look pretty silly to anyone who knows been part of those places)
So in the end, you get at the very least the same education at UIC that you would at MIT, and perhaps get even more. For a LOT less money.
Just who are you trying to convince? It's actually pretty simple, IMHO...
Ivy leage schools, at least in the science/math/engineering departments, use those whopper tuitions for top facilities, top research funding, and to attract top professors. The top professors, in turn, typically lead their field and are able to share their expertise, insight, and findings with their students, attracting the brightest and most motivated students. As a cycle, since the top students popular their classes, the professor and curriculums can move faster and in more depth than at other universities. So, although a Taylor series is a Taylor series, such fundamentals are omitted from class time. For example, in my first semester at Cornell, the intro E&M course I took starting using multi-dimensional analytical calculus by day two--there was no watering down of the material because students may not have even used it before. You were just expected to learn it all within a few days--and if you couldn't, you'd fail out.
So, to return the the issue, the large tuition ends up being a means to concentrate top students. A university can't concentrate the top students if they don't have the top facilities, the top professors, and the top research (and those things take money!)
Is it possible to get the same caliber education elsewhere? Sure, but it's going to take a truckload of independent and above-and-beyond study to do so (which is hard for *anyone* to become that self-motivated).
Is large tuition necessary to concentrate top students? For the reasons above, yes--unless the government doesn't supply all that money (as the Swiss guy posted in a related thread).
Yeah, but Thoreau was a looser. His parent's said "get a job you bum", kicked him out of the house, and hoped he'd act like a derned grownup for a change. Instead, he went and built a shack 2 miles away near a lake and did a little writing about how great he was. What a joke.
These words are harrowing.
I don't know what's worse, the fact that you say this and then proceed to offer advice (as if you've established yourself as someone who has valuable things to say), or how grossly wrong you are. The fact that you posted this anonymously only testtifies to your cowardice and lack of credentials.
Guy, you're the "looser", not a one of the most well-respected and accomplished American poets.
As a result, PayPal said it would pay a total of $9.25 million to settle the federal class-action suit, $3.4 million of which would go to paying its customers' legal fees.
Once again, the only real winners are the lawyers, skimming off the top, the only benefactors of a situation in which neither the defendant or the plaintiff win (assuming that you agree that an award of less than $1 isn't a "win" for a single person's perspective).
I posted the following on this guy's blog comment form, and I thought some folks here might agree with it... Yay/nay?
A worthwhile and insightful read (and it's about to get slashdotted). You use the phrase "great software" frequently. I post this sincerely and do not mean to troll. Since you are a MS PM and/or dev, there seems to be three possibilities:
(1) MS consistently makes "great software" and you are, therefore, content to be a MS employee.
(2) MS does not make consistently "great software" and you are, therefore, either unhappy at MS or long to be project group that makes "great software".
(3) You and other people (myself included) have dissimilar meanings of "great software".
In short, I believe possibility (3) is the case.
From the article, this sums up everything and this country's possible future business landscape:
Certainly, a finding in Acacia's favor will herald the arrival of a new kind of player: a company that controls technology but doesn't create it; a firm that buys patents but that patents nothing. From its roots in venture capitalism, Acacia has morphed into something that has no real peer.
We can only hope to elect officials and (indirectly) judges that frown on this practice.
This reminds me of the excellent film Wall Street, where we see the insightful contrast between the working man (ie, someone who produces something played by Martin Sheen) and a big-time trader (ie, someone who gets income without, at any point, adding any value--played my Michael Douglas).
It's scary how much you can learn from blogs.msdn.com. There are a lot of smart people working at MS, but what are they all working on? The quality and thoughtfulness of the posters there indicates that they must have some killer internal projects.
It was interesting--thanks for sharing the link...
However, this is a good opportunity to consider the differences between being smart/witty/intelligent and being driven, visionary, and willing to work in a project that may not succeed (b/c it's not in backed from the get-go with millions). I can say this b/c I've been exposed to ms developers, startup develops (myself included), and developers somewhere in between. I, personally, am not impressed with devs that don't seek the highest level of excellence in what they create. Most ms devs I've seen are so high in the Microsoft ivory tower that they've lost all sense of reality and priority. They are unconsciously in the mindset that the world revolves around them. Keep in mind this phenomenon isn't a MS thing--it's what happens to celebrities, wealthy people, and powerful people that only spend their time inside their courtyard.
To spare boring details, I've repeatedly witnessed MS teams not fix trivial bugs/issues because of the testing (ie added budget) they'd "need" to do on the changed code (despite that any dev could look at the code and tell the PM that there is *no* risk). *That's* why even the smallest issues and problem tend to go unfixed for so rediculous amounts of time.